humanizer_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the information returned (backends, rule sources, file types), which implies a read-only, side-effect-free introspection call, but it never explicitly states that it is read-only, whether it is cheap, or whether it touches disk state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the three payload categories. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating what comes back, which substitutes for the missing return-value documentation. The only gap is that it does not explicitly frame the tool as a read-only diagnostics call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description could add about arguments. It correctly does not invent parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates exactly what resource is reported: available rewrite backends, loaded rule sources, and supported file types. This is clearly a diagnostic/capability-introspection tool, which distinguishes it at a glance from action siblings like humanizer_humanize_text or humanizer_lint_text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: a 'status' tool is understood to be a preflight/discovery call, but the description never says when to call it, whether it should precede other humanizer tools, or what alternatives exist. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.